Australia faces an unprecedented challenge from climate change. We risk losing our natural heritage, our rivers, landscapes and biodiversity. We have a brief opportunity to act now to safeguard and shape our future prosperity. – AUSTRALIA 2020 SUMMIT – INITIAL SUMMIT REPORT
One of the 100 privileged participants within the POPULATION, SUSTAINABILITY, CLIMATE CHANGE, WATER & FUTURE OF OUR CITIES topic area, proposed,
“A zero species loss by 2020 goal, and one of the ways that this could be achieved is through a comprehensive series of protected areas.”
Not one of the 100 participants argued in support of protecting the integrity of the evolutionary process.
Another participant stated,
“My understanding, from my work in natural resource management, biodiversity and so forth, we could stop any further degradation by 2020; that’s a feasible goal; most of it is government, not money…”
Again, no argument from participant expertise, along the lines of the 24-million feral pigs in Australia, as but one example.
The summit proposed that environmental considerations will be fully integrated into economic decision making in Australia, at the household, business and government levels, but there was no contention that legislation enacted in 1994 already required the integration of environmental and economic considerations in decision making and for balancing the interests of current and future generations.
I would have hoped that the more important recital would have recognized the historical lack of compliance as the preeminent issue and that future refinements would preclude non-compliance.
Indeed, the 1992 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment expresses a significant achievement of environmental policy design and rather than reinventing the regulatory wheel, as-it-were, it could have formed the foundation for refinement towards the forum’s stated aims.
The delegation proposed the adoption of a National Sustainability, Population and Climate Change Agenda and the development of robust institutions to support it. As a part of this agenda, an audit function to report on governments’ performance against these climate change and sustainability objectives, would be included.
Again, the pre-existence of the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994, with its annual auditing and reporting functions, was conspicuous in its absence from the debate.
Interestingly, the Initial Summit Report indicated how strikingly and often concern arose that Australia has not been sufficiently clever in using the skills and ingenuity of its people.
This is despite Principle 22 of the 1992 RIO DECLARATION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, which states:
Indigenous people and their communities and other local communities have a vital role in environmental management and development because of their knowledge and traditional practices. States should recognise and duly support their identity, culture and interests and enable their effective participation in the achievement of sustainable development.
The Initial Summit Report did stipulate, however, the involvement of indigenous people, insofar as:
• A new dialogue will have been established with our indigenous peoples on our response to climate change, water and sustainability challenges;
• Stakeholder engagement, including with regional Australians, capacity building and education are needed to support the significant behavioural change required to implement these policies. Indigenous people must also be involved in policy development and implementation; and
• That a National Indigenous Knowledge Centre be established and maintained with indigenous people. This centre would examine multidisciplinary research and program delivery pertaining to climate change, sustainability and water.
However, the essence of environmental interdependence (in my opinion), binding individuals and families together in common possession, through the building block of both communities and nationhood, was largely overlooked. So too was the excellent practice of so many individuals, families and communities through existing commitments. There was rather the stale and familiar stench of enriching the bureaucratic stake in an illusion of environmental concern.
I would have preferred that Australia was rather re-defined by its people and their relationship with their natural environment. Surely it would have been better if Australia had been required to be supportive of its unique communities, bound in triumphant territorial respect for the aspirations, life and memory of their constituents. I would have thought it much more encouraging, if it was exposed to discomfort of its historically abhorrent dislocation of communities from their natural environment and in the same unequivocal terms that bind Australians to Australia.
I also believe that Australia’s adaptive strategy must be accommodated by the national strength of unity. The federal Government needs the solidarity of its people to act upon this global conviction and to bring the divisiveness of yesterday’s enviro-corruption to an unequivocal end. All Australians must annihilate the perverse belief that we condone the removal of people and communities as a condition of caring for the natural environment. We must rather stand united and restore dignity to our disenfranchised communities and revitalise their children’s futures.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
20/20 Stupidity.
And that is with foresight and hindsight Louis!
Neil!
Judging by your posts, I can’t see anyone, who would care more about their environment than you do.
Pity, you are not one of our “Brightest” and had no say in formulating the policy.
Cheers.
errr Paul – a bit lost. Can you give us a simple 1-5 list of points you would have liked to have seen.
sorry … Neil
Luke,
1. Acknowledge that Australia’s relationship with its natural environment is a net expression of the sum of all individual relationships and historically self-defeating.
2. Through the Prime Minister, issue a Parliamentary admission of historical wrongdoing and full apology to the victims of environmental injustice.
3. Establish a Commission and (intergovernmental) Declaration for Environmental Justice.
4. Demolish the perversities and structural institutions that have failed to care for the natural environment as a government responsibility.
5. Restore stewardship of the natural environment to the people and communities most vested in the consequences of best-practice care and productivity.
But Neil there are some major anomalies too – Plagues of ferals and weeds released upon the landscape by previous “custodians”? Clearing some ecosystems down to unsustainable levels.
Like 20% of our rangelands degraded beyond repair from overgrazing. Billions of dollars of drought aid paid to keep doing it? Telstra sold off for massive regional NRM investment for what real outcomes? Community based activity too.
Who do I send my bill to?
Meaningless PC twaddle. Unless it is satire.
Didn’t the indigenous custodians completely change the nature of the Australian landscape through the use of fire and wipe out most of the megafauna with ongoing efforts to wipe out turtles and dugongs?
Yes, over-population of the world, loss of biodiversity, pollution, water shortages and famine are all the fault of indigenous custodians, RIGHT.
If any sector has a legitimate claim to superior sustainability, it is the longest surviving human culture in the world.
In Australia, we really need to go back to first principles and look at what it is that links individuals to a care for their natural environment. I think it is instinctive. Taken collectively, it very likely underpins what is often described as parochialism or territorialism and nationally as patriotism.
But whatever the unit of care, it should be cultivated and resourced affirmatively so that it grows in its importance and infectiousness.
Historically, the Australian approach has been contradictory.
Hmmmn, 1000 people meet for two days. Thats about 20 hours of contact time divided by 1000 equals 72 seconds each. Clearly, no-one in attendance was seriously there to hear the considered views of others.
Too harsh, you think? Well, lets just try 100 people in each group over the same 20 hours. It is still only a maximum of 12 minutes each.
But those of us who were not born yesterday will remember that this is the same stunt pulled by Hawke in the 1980s. It was a similar mass debate that was subsequently shortened to the mastebate. It was the only universal truth to come out of the exercise.